Historical Blunders

[Baraka]

Bib,

Baraka,

>I understand that Saddam was paying suicide bomber families in Israel. Everyone was aware of that for a long, long time. But so many other governments in the Middle East were also involved in funding suicide bomber families in Israel.<

Who would these other governments be? I have not heard of them. To my knowledge, Saddam and Iraq were the only ones with that much brass, and stupidity.

What would these other governments be? Well, I already mentioned Iran and Syria and I mentioned them for a reason. Where do you think Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah- currently, the most prevalent and active terrorist organizations in the world- are based? Hezbollah was founded in Lebanon in 1982- and who controlled Lebanon for the past 20+ years until only recently? Hmmm...

And what about Islamic Jihad? Where are they based? Hmmm...

And which country has a history of actively collaborating with both of these organizations to kill scores of Americans over the past 20+ years? I'll give you a hint: the country begins with an "I" and is just a typo away from being "Iraq".

>This begs the question: Why attack Iraq, as opposed to an Iran or a Syria? All funded terrorism- and continue to do so- yet only one was attacked. Why? You'll have to explain that one to me.<

Because of HISTORY! No other middle eastern governments have proved to be as nuts, at this point in time, as Saddam was. Other means of controlling these other situations are being implemented. At some point, other countries may need to be taken care of militarily.

Wait a second... are you saying that the Mullahs in Iran are somehow less "nuts" than Saddam was during his reign? That's sort of like arguing that Stalin was worse than Hitler, or that Hitler was worse than Mao, or any other my-dictator-can-beat-up-your-dictator comparison that you can dream up. Both countries (Iran/Iraq) used chemical and biological weapons on each other. Both have been extremely brutal to their own people. One was/is an extremist Islamist theocracy and the other was a secular Islamist dictatorship. The US government chose to get involved in that whole clusterfuck and picked sides. And you know what? They got burned and the American people got burned for supporting a power hungry, megalomanic dictator.

Either way, your statement, "No other middle eastern governments have proved to be as nuts, at this point in time, as Saddam was." is still lost upon me. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, though.

>Also, what has funding suicide bomber families half way across the world have to do with threatening the lives of the American people?<

Geez, I had no idea that this level of specification was needed. First, half way around the world means nothing to terrorists. Israel is an avowed enemy of Saddam. The US in an avowed enemy of Saddam. Saddam funded attacks against Israel.

You're right. Israel was an avowed enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Unfortunately, Israel is an avowed enemy of every other Islamist nation in the Middle East. And, guess what? So is the US.

Saddam would probably fund, and provide the means to attack the US in the same manner.

Says who?

Given his history, the risk was too great to take.

And what history is that?

Again, in view of all these new points I've raised, I ask you: why did the US attack Iraq instead of an Iran, or a Syria?

>You talk about Saddam being able to "provide the means to attack the US", but you don't actually explain what that means. On what basis do you make that statement?<

As the Duelfer report indicates, from sources within Saddam's government, he was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted to begin his weapons programs again.

Fair enough. So why not run with the re-established UN inspection regime, wait for Saddam to kick them out again (or do something equally as stupid) and then go to war with a worldwide, cohesive- not to mention legitimate- coalition? Why rush to war in March of 2003 when they did? Clearly, there was no imminent threat to anyone in the region, let alone a country about 10000 miles away. The Duelfer Report says as much.

He also was giving sanctuary to terrorists. Al Queda, like it or not, was in Iraq before the war.

That's very debatable. It's also somewhat of a distorted statement, since the "Al Qaeda" that you're referring to was technically hiding out in the US-supported portion of Northern Iraq, controlled not by Saddam, but by the Kurds. Yes, the US government supported these "freedom fighters", or whatever you want to call them. And it's easy to see why. The US also supported KLA "freedom fighters" against Slobodan Milosevic in the runup to the airwar in Kosovo 6 years ago. There is a very long and rich history of the US government supporting terrorist organizations whenever those parties served US interests. Sorry.

But let's say I believe you about Al Qaeda really operating out of Iraq before the Iraq War. You know what? Iran and Syria also provided- and continue to provide- safe haven and sanctuary to terrorists. Again, I ask: why Iraq?

It would have been too simple and easy for Saddam to give money and actual weapons, chemical or biological, to terrorists for use in the US or Europe. Given his history, the likelyhood was great.

You're always entitled to your opinion. The CIA also had/has an opinion on this very subject and their view kinda differs from yours. If you'd like to qualify your opinion with some facts and references, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm very curious where you get your information from.

It will be interesting if the winds do shift, we stop the offensive against terrorism, fall back to a defensive position. I think it will not be long till we have the answer to which system is better.

Time will tell, right? Good luck with your predictions, for everyone's sake.

 

[iwant8inches]

OK, I give up. I have no idea why you cannot see the big picture, what had happened in the past, how it related to invading at the time, and how it will impact the future.

You all seem to see one fact, no stockpiles of WMDs, and are blinded to everything else. A true shame.

Let's see how it goes. Maybe the pressure will be kept on, and the terrorists will be defeated, or at least marginalized.

Or maybe a liberal democrat will be elected, and we can have more 9/11's. At any rate, we shall all know within the next decade or so.

Bigger

Who was President on 9/11?
Why do you think 9/11 occurred?
And in the name of what international law, treaty, or even our own laws was this Iraq invasion justified?
Who are the U.S. lead coalition fighting right now and why is each group fighting?
What does a "liberal democrat" have anything to do with 9/11?
Try to not repeat what our Pres and Vice Pres insist is the "Big" picture. They don't want us to see the big picture.
I'm not sure you understand all of the answers to these questions.

 

[koooky]

Thats a good point Iwant8.

There WAS a very conservative president in charge when 9/11 happened and for people
to claim that more will happen if a Lib democrat is elected is completely biased and ridicules. What a great claim for Bush, "No terrorist attacks SINCE 9/11" Great. That does those 3000 families alot of good now doesn't it.

My wife--who HAS ALREADY SERVED in the middle east---brought up a good point last night....This is all a "what if" scenario by the way...

What if a guy who is a reservist is killed in action over there BUT his contract and commitment to the reserves was up a year ago and they would let him go home. How much of a media night mare would it be if his family filed a "wrongful death" civil suit against the US military, the Us government, and/or the DoD. It would be very interesting to see how that would shake things up and further affect the current downward spiral of recruitment. I am sure the family would lose, but I am also sure just the media coverage would crucify those involved.

Just a thought.

Kook

 

[Bib]

Baraka,

You made me see exactly how your mind works. I have some good questions.

>What would these other governments be? Well, I already mentioned Iran and Syria and I mentioned them for a reason. Where do you think Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah- currently, the most prevalent and active terrorist organizations in the world- are based? Hezbollah was founded in Lebanon in 1982- and who controlled Lebanon for the past 20+ years until only recently? Hmmm...<

Right, and so you directly link these avowed terrorist organizations to governments and countries? I know you can find evidence of this support. And yet you discount Saddams involvement with terrorist organizations? So if one does it, it must be OK or what? Iran, Syria, et al, at least try to cover up much of their involvement, especially that which leads to deaths. Mainly because they are afraid of retaliation by Israel. Saddam was much more out front. Much more nuts.

My original point was about Saddam's blatent, advertised intent to pay families of suicide bombers. I have not heard of other countries or governments doing this.

>And which country has a history of actively collaborating with both of these organizations to kill scores of Americans over the past 20+ years? I'll give you a hint: the country begins with an "I" and is just a typo away from being "Iraq".<

You are correct, and they are being addressed. Or are you calling for the invasion of Iran also?

>Wait a second... are you saying that the Mullahs in Iran are somehow less "nuts" than Saddam was during his reign? That's sort of like arguing that Stalin was worse than Hitler, or that Hitler was worse than Mao, or any other my-dictator-can-beat-up-your-dictator comparison that you can dream up. Both countries (Iran/Iraq) used chemical and biological weapons on each other. Both have been extremely brutal to their own people. One was/is an extremist Islamist theocracy and the other was a secular Islamist dictatorship. The US government chose to get involved in that whole clusterfuck and picked sides. And you know what? They got burned and the American people got burned for supporting a power hungry, megalomanic dictator.<

Of course you can make judgements about the quality of dictators. And yes, obviously Hitler was worse than Stalin, by any measure you care to look at. And yes, Saddam turned out to be worse than the Mullahs, who spend more time trying to prop up their own power, than invading other coutries or gassing their own people. Saddam had total control in Iraq, and many more assets with which to create havoc than Iran. Syria is not even on the same scale as Saddam.

Once again, you must look at history in context. During the beginning of his reign, Saddam was more attractive because he was a secularist, and was the avowed enemy of the Ayatollah, who had held our people for 444 days, and overthrown our buddy the Shah. Then with each passing year, he proved what he was actually about, mainly his aim to create a panIslamic state, with himself as the head, and control of the world oil reserves. Consequently, the US, over the years, changed our perception of Saddam, and how he was treated.

The point which is ignored, and should be pounded home is this: We learned what Saddam was, abandoned support for him, and set about to thwart his aims and goals. Many other countries, rather than support the US, stepped in and filled the economic void left by the US pull out of Iraq support. They all knew exactly how bad Saddam was, and yet they climbed into bed with him anyway. Where is the global media rebuke for this? France, Germany, Russia, and China, sold out their moral gounding in the name of MONEY.

>Either way, your statement, "No other middle eastern governments have proved to be as nuts, at this point in time, as Saddam was." is still lost upon me. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, though.<

Well, there is hardly any reason to tote up the atrocities. Saddam wins by a landslide. If you do a bit of research, I am sure you will agree.

>You're right. Israel was an avowed enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Unfortunately, Israel is an avowed enemy of every other Islamist nation in the Middle East. And, guess what? So is the US.<

You must be kidding. You believe that SA, Kuwait, Yemen, the UAE, etc etc, are the avowed enemy of the US?

>Says who?<

History.

>And what history is that?<

The history of Saddam's 20 year rule. If you are not familiar with it, do the research.

>Again, in view of all these new points I've raised, I ask you: why did the US attack Iraq instead of an Iran, or a Syria?<

First, I have not seen any valid points you have raised.

But I have answered many times: Iraq was a much greater threat than Iran or Syria, because of their acquired technology, oil revenues, Saddam's hording of OFF money, and greatest of all, proven intent and capability. Neither Iran or Syria has or had any of those.

>Fair enough. So why not run with the re-established UN inspection regime, wait for Saddam to kick them out again (or do something equally as stupid) and then go to war with a worldwide, cohesive- not to mention legitimate- coalition? Why rush to war in March of 2003 when they did? Clearly, there was no imminent threat to anyone in the region, let alone a country about 10000 miles away. The Duelfer Report says as much.<

So, just let the inspectors muddle around in country for a few more months, declare the country free of WMD, and then leave? The only freaking reason Saddam allowed the inspectors back in country was because of hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on the other side of his border! So you wanted to just leave those guys there to enforce the ability of the inspectors to do there work?

Further, the evidence was that Saddam was still thwarting the inspectors, not allowing access to areas, demanding notice of inspeciton of areas, moving of equipment and supplies before inspections, etc, etc.

Then, after we would have left the area, what did the Duelfer report say Saddam's plan was? To start back production bigger and better than before. He was openly developing his delivery systems, contrary to UN resolutions, in order to be ready for his improved WMD.

Once again, nobody, especially Bush, said Saddam was an imminent threat! Bush said he wanted him out BEFORE he became an imminent threat! Why would any leader take his country to the edge before facing a threat?

Lastly, it was obvious that the above mentioned coutries had sold their individual and collective souls in the matter of Saddam, and in the name of money. There would never be any cooperation from those countries as long as they were making money from Saddam.

>That's very debatable. It's also somewhat of a distorted statement, since the "Al Qaeda" that you're referring to was technically hiding out in the US-supported portion of Northern Iraq, controlled not by Saddam, but by the Kurds. Yes, the US government supported these "freedom fighters", or whatever you want to call them. And it's easy to see why. The US also supported KLA "freedom fighters" against Slobodan Milosevic in the runup to the airwar in Kosovo 6 years ago. There is a very long and rich history of the US government supporting terrorist organizations whenever those parties served US interests. Sorry.<

Huh? Al-Zarqawi and his group were already in Iraq! He was wounded in Afghanistan, and retreated to Iraq where he was given sanctuary. He was not in the northern training areas.

There were also other Al Queda cells located in Iraq. To say that the US was supporting Al Queda in Iraq against Saddam is absurd. What source do you have for that bit of news? Further, the Kurds did not control any part of Iraq. They LIVED in northern Iraq. Saddam frequently showed them his force and control. The no fly zone did not prohibit the movement of ground troops.

>But let's say I believe you about Al Qaeda really operating out of Iraq before the Iraq War. You know what? Iran and Syria also provided- and continue to provide- safe haven and sanctuary to terrorists. Again, I ask: why Iraq?<

Please see above.

>You're always entitled to your opinion. The CIA also had/has an opinion on this very subject and their view kinda differs from yours. If you'd like to qualify your opinion with some facts and references, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm very curious where you get your information from.<

First, what is/was the view of the CIA? Or rather, what do you believe? I saw, read, and heard Clinton appointed CIA chief Tenet say that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk". I also heard him say Saddam was a tremendous threat. What more could you ask for?

Most, if not all information on Saddam, his intent and capabilities can be easily found. If you want to find it and read. The Duelfer report is very eye opening.

But as far as the risk involved from Saddam, you would have to be blind, or truly biased, not to see it, just from his previous actions.

>Time will tell, right? Good luck with your predictions, for everyone's sake.<

Let us hope that hearts and minds of the terrorist can be changed. That they no longer want to destroy the west in order to protect their desired way of life.

Bigger

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Swank:

Well, regardless of the other stuff, the A-bombs were horrible, but the end result probably more saved Japanese civillians than the alternatives. Most historians, Japanese and American, recognize that the bombing campaigns and invasion tactics that would have been needed to overthrow Japan's military extremist government would have resulted in far more casualties than the atomic bombs. They were used because the fear and horror created by that kind of destruction essentially shocked the Japanese into surrender. A long and drawn out land invasion campaign on the Japanese mainland or months of ariel bombing were the only other options.

Whether you support it or not, the single greatest act of terrorism on earth was committed by the country that claims to defend freedom the most: the United States of America. In one instant, and through the orders of just one man, this country killed 300,000 people. 300,000 poor people who were just living their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That totals 100 times more than the 2,700 people killed following the attack of the twin towers. 300,000 dead at once! Not because they were close to any military installation, but because by carrying out this monstrous act, the American government thought they could terrorise the Japanese into surrendering and accepting to sign a document of defeat to end the war.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

Well, this is a morbid topic to stickle over, but 300,000+ is the estimate for total deaths resulting from radiation poisoning, shortages, and other maladies created by teh bombing. As I recal just over 100,000 died immediately.

Whether or not the bombing could be considered a terrorist action is an interesting propostion as its intended effects were certainly a reaction prompted by fear and horror, the stock and trade ammunition of terrorists.

At the same time, we were at war with a nation that instigated our involvement with direct aggression, but this does little to alter the assertion that it was a terrorist action by definition.

One thing that contradicts the idea is the reason why I don't disagree with the decision, though I remain largely horrified by it for various reasons. The decision to use the bombs has been presented to me as a humanitarian act. Amazing as it seems, and you'll have to excuse me on anything regarding numbers or hard data, but military analysts and historians on both sides of teh war, war time and modern, have surmized that had we continued on with a conventional campaign to take the mainland the number of deaths would have been much higher. We would have continuously bombed and shelled the Japanese islands and blocked all their access to food and energy imports, essentially starving and freezing out millions of civiliians. Japan's government wer hardlining right-wing extremists and would likely have not given up until they literally could no longer fight. It was believed that the particular awfulness of nuclear attack would be demonstrative of enough power and so shocking as to be the only catalyst for immediate surrender.

When the case was made to me I was initially resistant to the idea, but it was strong and logical in it's presentation, and I have since become comfortable with the idea.

If the bombs were of a terrorist nature, then our extended bombing campaigns over Europe during WWII and of course Vietnam ought to be food for thought as well. Though not all at once as was the case with Japan, we killed far more people over many, many ariel bombing missions in both conflicts over time. In fact, the first time we ever used napalm was to kill a number of defunct German brigades in teh French countryside at the very end of the war. Unfortunately in order to kill the harmless soldiers we also destroyed a larger French village that were camped around. WWII and many of our other wars are filled with such brutal incidents. The atrocities carried out against Vietnamese peasants during Vietnam are well-documented and horrific, and unfortunately live on with the tens of thousands of "agent orange babies" born deformed and handicapped in the country every year.

My point with all that is, don't get too hung up on the A-bombs if you want to look for immoral and inhuman actions by the US over the years. Look into our treatment of Native Americans, our support of brutal foreign dictators, our calndestine bombing missions, and countless other actions. The A-bombs were arguably a lesser evil when we discuss the human factor. You don't have to dig deep to see all the wrongly spilt blood in our history; I encourage you to take your interest and apply it to the full spectrum of US history.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Swank:

have surmized that had we continued on with a conventional campaign to take the mainland the number of deaths would have been much higher. We would have continuously bombed and shelled the Japanese islands and blocked all their access to food and energy imports, essentially starving and freezing out millions of civiliians. Japan's government wer hardlining right-wing extremists and would likely have not given up until they literally could no longer fight. It was believed that the particular awfulness of nuclear attack would be demonstrative of enough power and so shocking as to be the only catalyst for immediate surrender.

Swank, the powers that be inform us that some loss of human lives might sound bad, but is nothing more than "collateral damage", and we should except this. This might sound normal to someone who is caught up in the logic of violence. "We saved numerous lives by killing some", they say. But what right do some people have to live while others don't? This is nothing more than propaganda. Propaganda for violence that will propogate further, because it will be seen as the "ideal" solution for the whole world.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

Mmm, I guess I'm missing your point here. The theory is supported by independent academic historians, Japanese and American. It wasn't something the government cooked up and sold en masse to the public at the time. In truth I imagine it was more of a bottom line fiscal call at the Pentagon. Truman certainly did make the call, though his role was essentially just to authorize the use of atomics, he didn't literally say "drop the bombs here and here on this day."

The point is simply that in order to defeat the Japanase and end the war there were two roads to be taken. Either a drawn out campaign against the mainland, in which there would have been hundreds if not thousands of smaller bombing runs that would have peppered the entire nation (similar to the European continent) and mass starvation and shortages as we cut off their remaining supply lines and aid. Or, using the bombs to shock them into surrender.

I still believe it was more humane to end it quickly than creat more extended suffering and what would have surely been a greater overall loss of life with a longer mainland invasion.

The use of the bombs left the bulk of Japanese infrastructure in better shape and contained the damage to a few areas. As a result, Japan was able to recover quickly and eventually thrived in the post war period under the new democratic regime. We don't know that this would have been the case if we had reduced all their cities to rubble.

Also, and this once more falls in the line of counter-intuitive but quite true, the bombs did have the positive effect of letting the world know just how awful such weapons could be. The reluctance and fear that surrounded nuclear weapons in the cold war era was largley due to the fact that world saw the horrific consequences of their use in Japan and was indeed, very wary of them. Their use left a lasting imprint on the world, and its legacy was reluctance to unleash that sort of destruction on human beings ever again.

The fact is, after the atomic race to develop a bomb in the first place, somebody was going to deploy them, somewhere. In this sense, Japan, awful as it seems, was perhaps the best scenario as their use arguably saved many lives in the end. Had somebody else beat us there, such consolation might not be available.

Basically I understand your point of essential pacifism and humanist thought, but the issue is a bit more complicated that can just be expressed in the sentiment, "it was wrong!" Of course violence is awful and should be avoided, and it's something we're working towards as a collective society and have made amazing progress towards. One must, however, consider the form of conflict and scale of history as well the greater context when approaching events like the bombing.

Was it terrible? Undoubtedly. Did it have to happen? Depends on if you believe in free will and all that, but most likely no, it was not the only option. Did less people die because of it? Again, there is strong case that yes, less people died because of the bombs than would have otherwise.

So, that's my litmus test for the correct decision, but we'll all have different ideas on the matter.

 

[Kal-el]

Swank, I understand your point of view, and dropping the bombs is probably "the lesser of two evils", opposed to ground conflict. However I do believe non-violence is always the answer.

Many years ago, Jesus overturned the stalls of the merchants in the temple. Who today would say that Jesus was violent? And yet he did chase out the merchants!

Mohammed was banished from his country of origin. He returned with the sword, still non-violent, but enough to be respected. The same for the first Buddhists, at first they were being attacked and maltreated, but then still non-violent, it was they who developed the martial arts.

My point is it is always possible to be respected without being violent.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

Ah, I see, but what then what would have been the proper course of action?

 

[Kal-el]

That's kinda hard to say. Like I said in another post- we already started sliding down a slippery slope. Nothing justifies the unjustifiable. Whether the bombs are wrapped around their belts, or dropped from an airplane, they both apply the same terrorism.